Coronavirus
-
The whole point of this was to Flatten the curve. NOT reduce deaths. The same exact number of infections and deaths occur under the tall curve or flattened curve. We are past overwhelming our hospitals. Open the state, restart the economy. if it isn't you are only further flattening the curve, not saving anyone, at the cost of a lot of peoples livelihoods.
But the number of deaths is directly related to the number of cases. So how wouldn't flattening the curve (i.e. reducing the number of overall cases) reduce the number of deaths?? The taller the curve, the more cases, the more cases, the more deaths. Flattening the curve means stopping the trajectory of the number of cases. The whole point of "flattening" the curve is stop the daily increase of covid patients, so those who have it can heal, and we can ultimately (hopefully) stop daily new cases.
-
Besides this, if you think anything the government does, ever, is to save lives, then you don't understand that either.
Please expand on this. Are you suggesting that the government is enforcing the stay at home order because they want to see the demise of small businesses and the livelihoods of people? And then the coronavirus came along and they saw this as their chance to enforce such a restriction and to see their evil scheme they've been plotting for years come to fruition? And all of this is being orchestrated from their secret lair in a volcano?
-
But the number of deaths is directly related to the number of cases. So how wouldn't flattening the curve (i.e. reducing the number of overall cases) reduce the number of deaths?? The taller the curve, the more cases, the more cases, the more deaths. Flattening the curve means stopping the trajectory of the number of cases. The whole point of "flattening" the curve is stop the daily increase of covid patients, so those who have it can heal, and we can ultimately (hopefully) stop daily new cases.
It's a numbers game. A virus/plague/whatever has a lifespan. The safer at home order SLOWED it's spread, not stop it. The flattening of the curve simply spread the cases out over a longer period of time so the hospitals could keep up. So, yes, I supposed # of deaths could be reduced because we wouldn't run out of ventilators.
Please expand on this. Are you suggesting that the government is enforcing the stay at home order because they want to see the demise of small businesses and the livelihoods of people? And then the coronavirus came along and they saw this as their chance to enforce such a restriction and to see their evil scheme they've been plotting for years come to fruition? And all of this is being orchestrated from their secret lair in a volcano?
Well....short answer, yes. Most things a government does is under the guise of protecting you. They say it's for the best. Granted it's not a james-bondish as you are insinuating, but a great political statement is 'never let a tragedy go to waste' both sides use events to further their agenda to further their political careers, etc. If something does help the public, it's by chance.
Why did Evers extend to the end of May? To protect us, right? Ha, no. That is what he tells the news for sound bites, but it's this: He's a Democrat, and both houses of the state govt are controlled by Repubs. So, he only has authority to keep us locked down for 60 days. This expires on May 11th. By extending to the 26th, he forces the repubs to vote on enforcing it or repealing it. If they enforce it, he gets to blame the repubs for the failing economy, if they repeal it, he gets to blame them for any deaths after the 11th. It's truely a genius political move. If the roles were reversed the repubs would have done the same thing. All politicians are disgusting and the one thing they have in common is that none of them have your best interest in mind.
-
Why did Evers extend to the end of May? To protect us, right? Ha, no. That is what he tells the news for sound bites, but it's this: He's a Democrat, and both houses of the state govt are controlled by Repubs. So, he only has authority to keep us locked down for 60 days. This expires on May 11th. By extending to the 26th, he forces the repubs to vote on enforcing it or repealing it. If they enforce it, he gets to blame the repubs for the failing economy, if they repeal it, he gets to blame them for any deaths after the 11th. It's truely a genius political move. If the roles were reversed the repubs would have done the same thing. All politicians are disgusting and the one thing they have in common is that none of them have your best interest in mind.
This,
Both parties are crooks and it's just a big power game. And we are the losers. The parties are just a ruse to divide us, the people. They both keep taking away our liberties under the guise of protecting us.
Also the big winner is China, they sell all of our medical stuff and PPE to us. Maybe it's a retaliation for tariffs? I don't know why anyone trusts ANY information from Chinese Government sources...
-
I guess rural is relative. If you live in Milwaukee then Sturtevant is rural. Approx 7000 nearby a huge metro area I would not consider rural. You are right how do you define it? I don't know. Rural to me for example would be counties like Taylor which is almost 1000 square miles and the entire population is 20,000, the largest "city" is Medford with 4,000. And there are zero positive cases. Having the county mostly shut down isn't flattening a curve. It is postponing at great expense. You can't flatten a curve that hasn't even started yet.
The concern I see is that you've already pointed out in an earlier statement that there is under reporting of cases as told by the story about your in-laws(I think?) and that is further proven by what I'm hearing from healthcare workers. This partnered with multiple studies showing the extreme disparity in access to healthcare offered in rural counties compared to metro/suburban areas and it leads to quotable "data" that can't accurately be verified to base a regional type lock down on. As @straight6pwr already pointed out as well, it's not as easy as locking down "red zones" because you'd have to completely shutdown travel in and out of communities in order to effectively stop the spread from someone traveling between them. We're talking total police state at that point which isn't favorable for a rural area where they're commuting a greater distance to patronize businesses. From my retail days I knew that in Rice Lake, WI I had more customers traveling 25-75 miles to utilize the Service Center than I did 1-10 miles but in Oak Creek, WI the pull past 20 miles was nearly non-existent. Opening a community but reducing travel doesn't help the rural community. As far as hospitals not being overrun, I can speak from personal experience right now and know for a fact that healthcare organizations are shutting down specialties and pulling doctors and nurses to COVID-19 units in the main hospitals to handle the influx coming in. So are the hospitals overrun? They're dealing but try and get an appointment with a specialist or GP right now for anything that wasn't pre-existing. How many long term health concerns are going undiagnosed right now because these specialties are being pulled to handle the current pandemic? The affects on the healthcare system is further reaching than we can comprehend right now.
On a daily basis right now I'm dealing with business owners who can't pay their bill's, are reducing hours, etc. It sucks and it's depressing to hear these stories every day and i'm glad when I talk to someone who says "we're doing OK". I don't have an answer for a good way to fix this. I recognize that i'm luckier than most right now and work every day to prove I still deserve a paycheck. Knowing the "facts" about the mortality rate, who's susceptible, etc I have to keep asking myself what level of risk am I willing to accept if my kids get sick or my wife or my parents or in-laws or friends and so on that they could be the whatever percent you subscribe to. The government doesn't have our best interest in mind and I still think a lot of the decision making is based on reducing the risk of lawsuits once this is all over. Again, I don't have a good answer for when we should return to normal. Nobody does. Everyone has an opinion based on how it's impacting them. Nobody would say "let's jump start everything!" if they knew it meant the loss of a loved one but everyone is OK with taking the risk for someone else to lose someone.
-
It's a numbers game. A virus/plague/whatever has a lifespan. The safer at home order SLOWED it's spread, not stop it. The flattening of the curve simply spread the cases out over a longer period of time so the hospitals could keep up. So, yes, I supposed # of deaths could be reduced because we wouldn't run out of ventilators.
I think you mean Austin Powerish?
I don't know. I guess I don't agree with that logic. If everyone went on with their lives during this the number of cases would have grown exponentially more than they already have - everyone is exposed to the virus. You keep people at home and now those people are not exposed to it and the number of people who are out and about that could get the virus is greatly reduced. I believe the intent is to keep people from being exposed to it so it can "run its course" through a community with those who had been exposed and when people are able to leave their homes, the virus is no longer in that community.
Maybe your point is that we could never accomplish a true, 100% stay at home policy to completely stop the virus because not everyone is staying at home. So I guess it's finding a balance if not 100% of the people are going to stay at home, then how do we allow things to open to let the world move on while trying to minimize the spread?
This town in Spain did the ultimate stay at home and had zero cases:
-
I think you mean Austin Powerish?
I don't know. I guess I don't agree with that logic. If everyone went on with their lives during this the number of cases would have grown exponentially more than they already have - everyone is exposed to the virus. You keep people at home and now those people are not exposed to it and the number of people who are out and about that could get the virus is greatly reduced. I believe the intent is to keep people from being exposed to it so it can "run its course" through a community with those who had been exposed and when people are able to leave their homes, the virus is no longer in that community.
Maybe your point is that we could never accomplish a true, 100% stay at home policy to completely stop the virus because not everyone is staying at home. So I guess it's finding a balance if not 100% of the people are going to stay at home, then how do we allow things to open to let the world move on while trying to minimize the spread?
This town in Spain did the ultimate stay at home and had zero cases:
I knew it was austin powers....but I already typed james bond. haha.
It's OK not to agree with the logic, there is every chance that I'm not right. I'm basing it on what the initial reasoning for 'flatening the curve' was we were told it was to keep the influx lower for a longer period of time to not tax the hospitals and equipment. Now it has become full on eradication mode. That doesn't seem logical or possible to me.
As for the spanish town that locked itself down. Of course if there are no cases and they literally don't allow anything in or out, they wont get any. But how long do they do that? I doubt Covid 19 will every be 100% erradicated form the earth, or even Spain.....so, do they stay locked down forever? It seems that the current way of thinking would say Yes! It is Safer! If it saves just 1 life! So of course, they will eternally stay locked down. Most likely the town will die in a few generations due to unavoidable inbreeding.
-
The lockdown isn't forever in order to kill the virus off, it's to create time for a cure or treatments to be developed so that we can live with it still around.
Pandemic type sickness never go away, they are managed. We still have many old ones lingering in our world, but we can ignore that fact because we have vaccines for them.
Dan
-
unavoidable inbreeding.
This might be the most troublesome ending I've heard to this pandemic.
-
This might be the most troublesome ending I've heard to this pandemic.
Why go across the street when you can go across the hall.
-
One thing I've never understood from the beginning of this is if the disease is so infectious and deadly, why are there jillions of people dead in China? Those people are packed in like sardines in the cities over there.
I fully realize their socialist/communist/whatever the hell they are now government is going to bury the truth about how many people croaked out but there are so many American and European corporate interests over there at this point, there's NO WAY they could hide the numbers that should be dead. If nothing else they should be smelling the tens of millions of rotting corpses in Japan by now, right?
-
One thing I've never understood from the beginning of this is if the disease is so infectious and deadly, why are there jillions of people dead in China? Those people are packed in like sardines in the cities over there.
I fully realize their socialist/communist/whatever the hell they are now government is going to bury the truth about how many people croaked out but there are so many American and European corporate interests over there at this point, there's NO WAY they could hide the numbers that should be dead. If nothing else they should be smelling the tens of millions of rotting corpses in Japan by now, right?
For the exact reason you said. It's a communist country. They lock everything down and tell people to stay inside and they do it. Disease can't spread if no one is outside to spread it.
-
Japan is a quirky and fascinating place, and I have been traveling there for all sorts of work and other reasons for almost 40 years. I expect there is extensive under reporting. The issue is not governmental control over reporting as in China but aspects of Japanese society and medical profession. Japan has an inverted population pyramid with a large elderly population often with little in the way of family support/check-ins. Many of them are shut ins and as such I expect there are illnesses and deaths at home that have yet to be discovered. Social norms about disease are also such that there would be patterns of self-isolation, and again the absence of check-ins. There are also community separations and histories of discrimination such that these communities would turn inward and the rest of Japan would not look to closely. This includes the economic lower class burakumin communities, areas with concentrations of ethnic Korean and Chinese, as well as more recent migrant communities that are employed under the radar so to speak and often lack access to social services.
Although there is a national health care system, there is a tendency of medical professionals to avoid reporting things they do not understand and in the context of the Olympic push I expect a pattern among higher ups to avoid looking for and revealing information that could have placed the event at risk. There is also a tendency of medical personnel to hide information from patients and family about causes of serious illnesses and death to avoid disturbing them with bad news. This has often been a pattern in cancer diagnoses, since the diagnosis suggested the sureity of death.
Now a more positive spin on the low numbers to date is that the Japanese practice of facemask use when folks have colds or allergies is extensive and their widespread access to masks may have acted as a check. Bottom line is that I would expect the Japan numbers to rise extensively.
-
One thing I've never understood from the beginning of this is if the disease is so infectious and deadly, why are there jillions of people dead in China? Those people are packed in like sardines in the cities over there.
I fully realize their socialist/communist/whatever the hell they are now government is going to bury the truth about how many people croaked out but there are so many American and European corporate interests over there at this point, there's NO WAY they could hide the numbers that should be dead. If nothing else they should be smelling the tens of millions of rotting corpses in Japan by now, right?
China acted pretty fast, and the Wuhan/China lockdown was in place about 3 weeks after the disease was discovered. and has been said, with their government, REALLY locked down. New York City metro area, which is about the size of Wuhan, took the same amount of time to lock down after the first reported case. its obvious that not everyone listened or at lease adopted the ideas slowly. considering the spread of the virus is exponential (one sick person gets multiple more people sick), at least a week of delay, and likely under-reported China cases, I think the difference in cases between New York (240,000) and China (90,000) is not unusual.
you also seem to be ignoring the fact that measures are being done to stop the spread, and in our fast-communicating world, it has helped. people keep saying its not that bad and conveniently ignore that the measures (like social distancing) in place are why. read about the flu epidemic of 1918. it was equally as contagious, but actually less deadly (percentage of people who got the disease and survived was higher). we have history and experience with a pandemic like this. experts arent just making shit up, it's happened before. we dont have millions of people dead because of the measures that have been put in place. do you really need to see millions of people dead to start thinking "oh shit this is a problem".
Dan
-
To trust anything being reported out of China is foolish
-
For the exact reason you said. It's a communist country. They lock everything down and tell people to stay inside and they do it. Disease can't spread if no one is outside to spread it.
Got your point, still don't understand given the population density in those cities how it couldn't spread like wildfire before they realized they needed to go on full lockdown. And to reiterate, I don't believe their numbers, but it just seems it would have been so out of control by the time they went on lockdown, they wouldn't have been able to hide what was going on.
-
and here we go. Safer in handcuffs
-
and here we go. Safer in handcuffs
I was at the rally on Friday at the Capital. The police told the early arrivals to leave about a half hour before it started and they were just ignored. They backed down and let it go on with no interference. It would have been tough to ticket/arrest 2000+ people...
It's hard to say your grounds for arresting someone when what you are saying is the constitution is suspended because someone defines it as emergency times.
-
I was at the rally on Friday at the Capital.
RIP
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login